Back to Top

Issue #2/2022
13 January 2022

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

PP v. MOHAMMAD FADIL HANAPI MD SAHIDEK [2022] 1 CLJ 469
HIGH COURT MALAYA, MUAR
AWG ARMADAJAYA AWG MAHMUD JC
[APPLICATION FOR REVISION NO: JB-43-3-08-2021]
14 OCTOBER 2021

A Magistrate or Sessions Judge, in proceeding to hear a criminal trial which has been partly heard, has a complete discretion under s. 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code to either hear the case de novo or continue from the point where it has been left by his predecessor, albeit that the discretion must be properly and reasonably exercised. Where, however, a trial under s. 376(1) Penal Code has been fully heard by a previous Sessions Judge except for the parties' submissions at the end of the defence case, as happened here, it might not be proper nor advisable for the succeeding Sessions Judge to have ordered a de novo trial, considering the multiple adverse repercussions that such a new trial would entail and the fact that the court could always view the full video recording of the trial if needs be; more so when no reason was given for the order, as the absence of reason may always attract the inference that the discretion has been wantonly or callously exercised.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Application for revision of decision of Sessions Court Judge ('SCJ') ordering trial to be heard de novo - Whether order had legal ramifications - Whether SCJ indicated reasons for order - Meaning of 'exercise of discretion' - Whether fulfilled - Whether Sessions Court may alter its decision after finding prima facie case had been made out by prosecution - Whether change of judge entailed order that trial be heard de novo - Whether justice of case demanded case be heard de novo - Whether order of SCJ improper and illegal - Whether ought to be set aside


JUDICIAL QUOTES

"In our view, it is settled law based on the authorities cited to us by learned counsel for the appellant in his submission that the prosecution has discretion whether to call any particular witness, but such discretion is subject to two limitations, viz (i) the discretion must be exercised with due regard to considerations of fairness and good faith; and (ii) the witnesses who had been investigated by the police and from whom the statements have been recorded must be offered to the defence." – per Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJ in Rosli Yusof v. PP [2021] 9 CLJ 681

For more Judicial Quotes, please login and view under "References" or subscribe to CLJLaw.


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 1 LNS 97

CNI22 ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD & ANOR v. CHIN CHEE KEONG

There is no basis for a shareholder to depart from the terms of the shareholders' agreement by relying on any other documents, more so when all the parties to the shareholders' agreement have agreed in clear terms that the shareholders' agreement constitutes the entire agreement between them and that the terms of the shareholders' agreement shall prevail over any other documents.

COMPANY LAW: Shares - Shareholders' agreement - Effect of - Construction of - Entire agreement clause - Plaintiff alleged defendant was holding shares under trust for plaintiff - Whether shareholders' agreement should be construed in a commercially sensible manner - Whether parties are bound by terms of shareholding agreement - Whether shareholding could be diluted without unanimous decision of board of directors - Whether shareholders' agreement imply any trust - Whether loan given by plaintiff to defendant could confer on plaintiff any equitable right to defendant's shares - Whether plaintiff entitled to file separate suit against defendant to recover loan - Whether there was breach of ss. 67(1) and 133(1) Companies Act 1965

  • For the plaintiffs - Azmi Abdoll Aziz, Wong Kong Fatt & Lim Hoon Shi; M/s KF Wong & Lee
  • For the defendant - Chai Yow San; M/s Chai Yow San & Co

[2020] 1 LNS 98

OPES ENGINEERING SDN BHD v. CDAH CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD; AIR KELANTAN SDN BHD & ANOR (GARNISHEES)

An adjudication decision is only temporary in effect. It cannot be enforced in the absence of an enforcement application or when there exist applications to set aside and stay the execution of the adjudication decision. As a result, the adjudication sum cannot be considered a debt due or accruing due within the meaning of O. 49 r. 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 to commence garnishee proceedings.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Execution - Garnishee proceedings - Application to make absolute ex parte garnishee order nisi - Adjudication decision made requiring garnishee to pay judgment debtor - Garnishee proceedings commenced by judgment creditor premised on adjudication sum - Garnishee filed a suit to set aside adjudication decision and obtained stay of adjudication decision - Judgment debtor yet to file enforcement application - Whether judgment creditor entitled to garnish adjudicated sum - Whether adjudication decision could be considered debt due or accruing due from garnishee to judgment debtor - Whether garnishee would suffer injustice if garnishee order nisi was made absolute - Rules of Court 2012, O. 49 r. 1(1)

CONSTRUCTION LAW: Adjudication - Adjudication decision - Nature and effect of adjudication decision - Whether adjudication decision only temporary in effect - Whether adjudication decision could be enforced without filing enforcement application pursuant to s. 28(1) and (2) of Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 - Whether adjudication decision could be enforced pending hearing of application for setting aside of adjudication decision and stay of adjudication decision

  • For the plaintiff - Lim Sze Han; M/s Han & Partners
  • For the 1st Garnishee - Wan Nor Idayu Wan Jusoh Garnishee; M/s Adli Aznam & Akram

[2020] 1 LNS 99

RAHBAR YADOLLAH FATHI v. PP

1. A trial judge is vested with wide powers to intervene and ask witnesses questions for clarification under s. 165 of the Evidence Act 1950. Such intervention would not amount to the judge taking over the prosecution or the defence counsel's duty.

2. Mere absence of any photograph depicting the process of marking the exhibits as well as failure to record the marking of the exhibits in the search list will neither affect the identity of the exhibits nor break the chain of evidence.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Trial judge posed question to various witnesses during trial - Trial judge intervened cross-examination of prosecution and asked questions from witnesses - Whether questions posed were mere clarification - Whether questions posed by trial judge caused prejudice to accused - Whether trial judge fallen into error in descending into arena of dispute - Whether trial judge had exceeded limits of judicial intervention

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Exhibits - Break in chain of evidence - Offence of trafficking dangerous drugs - Identity of drugs - Capsules containing drugs were excreted through body of accused on several occasions at different places - Markings of capsules not recorded in search list - Absence of photographs showing process of marking of capsules - Allegation that signature of accused on search list appeared to be different - Whether there was break in chain of evidence regarding handling of capsules - Whether there was doubt in identity of exhibits

EVIDENCE: Judge - Power to put questions or order production - Clarification - Whether trial judge vested with wide power to ask questions from witness - Evidence Act 1950, s. 165

  • For the appellant - V Jayamurugan; M/s Jayamurugan Vadivelu & Partners
  • For the respondent - Gan Chee Keong, Deputy Public Prosecutor; Attorney General's Chambers

[2019] 1 LNS 1744

KANNAN SUPRAMANIAM lwn. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN

Peruntukan s. 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 tidak menetapkan sebarang tempoh masa untuk Menteri Dalam Negeri menjalankan budi bicara dan tanggungjawabnya dalam mengeluarkan perintah tahanan. Apabila Menteri tidak mengeluarkan perintah tahanan sejurus selepas menerima laporan penyiasatan dan laporan inkuiri, maka Menteri tidak boleh dikatakan telah bertindak secara mekanikal dan arbitrari dalam menjalankan budi bicaranya.

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Tahanan bawah s. 6(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta 1985') - Menteri Dalam Negeri mengeluarkan perintah tahanan enam hari selepas menerima laporan lengkap penyiasatan dan laporan pegawai inkuiri - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan dalam pengeluaran perintah tahanan - Sama ada Menteri terikat dengan sebarang tempoh masa untuk menjalankan budi bicara dan tanggungjawabnya bawah peruntukan s. 6 Akta 1985 - Sama ada berlaku sebarang ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Sama ada Menteri telah bertindak secara mekanikal dan arbitrari semasa mengeluarkan perintah tahanan

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Sundarajan Sokalingam; T/n Sundarajan & Associates
  • Bagi pihak responden - Siti Hajar Mat Radzi, Peguam Persekutuan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2019] 1 LNS 1746

LIEW CHEE HENG lwn. JANESSA TANG SOO HUEY

Usia tua ibubapa suatu pasangan bukanlah satu faktor bagi menilai kemampuan mereka dalam meneruskan penjagaan anak terutamanya apabila tiada sebarang pertikaian atau bantahan yang telah dibuat sebelum pemfailan permohonan untuk hak penjagaan anak tersebut.

UNDANG-UNDANG KELUARGA: Anak - Penjagaan - Permohonan untuk hak penjagaan interim anak oleh suami - Anak perempuan berusia kurang daripada 4 tahun - Anak dijaga oleh ibubapa suami sejak lahir - Sama ada usia muda anak dipertimbangkan dalam menentukan hak penjagaan - Sama ada pertukaran hak penjagaan akan mengganggu kehidupan anak - Sama ada usia tua ibubapa suami faktor untuk menilai kemampuan suami dalam meneruskan penjagaan anak - Sama ada kesesuaian untuk menjaga anak oleh isteri telah dicabar - Sama ada anggapan bawah s. 88(3) Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 telah disangkal

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Tam Yuen Hung; T/n Low & Partners
  • Bagi pihak responden - Su Keong Siew & Pierre Chuah Lee Yan; T/n KS Su & Mah

CLJ 2022 Volume 1 (Part 3)

Given the clear wordings of s. 3(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('LRA') and the plain meaning of word 'or', the LRA is not applicable to a Muslim. The LRA does not merely govern monogamous marriages registered under the LRA, but more than that, it is a personal law for non-Muslims. Muslims have a different set of personal laws. If one is to read s. 3(3) only in respect of marriage and divorce, without regard to art. 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution read with art. 8(5)(a) of the same, the clear demarcation between the personal laws of Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia will be in a state of disarray.
AJS v. JMH & Another Appeal [2022] 1 CLJ 331 [FC]

|

FAMILY LAW: Marriage - Judicial separation - Petition - Wife filed petition for judicial separation against husband following allegation of adulterous relationship - Alleged adulteress Muslim - Wife named alleged adulteress as co-respondent - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('LRA') applies to Muslims - Whether s. 3(3) of LRA precludes non-Muslim petitioner from citing Muslim as co-respondent on allegation of adultery, to petition for judicial separation - Whether court, when interpreting s. 3(3) of LRA, should have regard to presumption that Parliament does not intend to legislate in violation of arts. 5(1) and 8(1) of Federal Constitution

FAMILY LAW: Marriage - Judicial separation - Petition - Claim for damages - Wife filed petition for judicial separation against husband following allegation of adulterous relationship - Alleged adulteress Muslim - Wife named alleged adulteress as co-respondent and claimed for damages - Whether claim for damages against co-respondent on ground of adultery applies in petition for divorce only - Whether could apply in petition for judicial separation - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 58

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 - Section 3(3) - Whether Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('Act') applies to Muslims - Whether s. 3(3) of LRA precludes non-Muslim petitioner from citing Muslim as co-respondent, on allegation of adultery, to petition for judicial separation - Whether language of s. 3(3) plain, unambiguous and unequivocal - Rule of construction - Whether required literal or purposive approach of interpretation - Whether court, when interpreting s. 3(3) of LRA, should have regard to presumption that Parliament does not intend to legislate in violation of arts. 5(1) and 8(1) of Federal Constitution

 

TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ

  • For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Ravi Nekoo, Pushpa Ratnam & Parvinder Kaur; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Kiran Dhaliwal, Siew Choon Jern & Ong Chern Yii; M/s Douglas Yee
  • Watching Brief - Sharon Tee; M/s YN Foo & Partners

If there is a point of law which requires serious discussion, an objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for argument under O. 33 r. 2 rather than going under O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. An action may involve many disputes on the facts as well as on the law; some more complex than the others. The determination of a preliminary point in one way may make it unnecessary for other more complex issues of fact or law to be decided, thus resulting in a saving of time and expense of a protracted trial on those issues.
Azhar Harun v. Dato’ Muthukumar Ayarpadde & Ors [2022] 1 CLJ 390 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Statement of claim - Determination of questions and issues - Rules of Court 2012, O. 33 rr. 2 & 5 - Plaintiff filed suit premised on breach of contract and fraudulent trading - Whether plaintiff's statement of claim disclosed any valid cause of action against defendants - Whether plaintiff pleaded necessary elements in statement of claim to make out cause of action for fraudulent trading - Whether there existed any privity of contract between parties - Whether there was any actionable misrepresentation - Whether there was point of law which required serious discussion - Whether objection should be taken on pleadings and point set down for argument

 

 

AHMAD FAIRUZ ZAINOL ABIDIN J

  • For the plaintiff - Mubashir Mansor, Amir Feisal Ariff, Raja Nadhil Aqran; M/s Ariff & Assocs
  • For 1st & 2nd defendants - Prem Ramachandran & Saresh Mahendran; M/s Kumar Partnership
  • For the 3rd-10th defendants - David Mathews & Ng Ken Yong; M/s Mathews Hun Lachimanan

The application to replace the administrator of a deceased's estate pursuant to ss. 89 and 90 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Sabah) (Cap 109) was allowed because sufficient cause was established, in that: (i) non-citizenship of the applicant is not a bar to his appointment as an administrator; (ii) despite extension of time granted, the administrator still failed to distribute the assets until the date of this decision; (iii) the administrator was involved in several transactions to misappropriate the estate funds; and (iv) the commencement of the movement control order ('MCO') due to Covid-19 pandemic could not justify the delay in carrying out the statutory duty as an administrator as he was appointed as such long before the start of MCO.
Daljinder Singh v. Amardeep Singh Dalj inder Singh; Sharandeep Singh Daljinder Singh (Intervener) [2022] 1 CLJ 419 [HC]

SUCCESSION: Appointment - Removal of administrator - Applications to replace administrator - Whether there was sufficient cause for removal of administrator - Failure to carry out statutory duty to distribute estate within six months after appointment - Failure to complete distribution of estate within extended time - Involvement in several transactions that showed misappropriation of estate funds - Whether delay in distributing assets of estate justified by commencement of movement control order due to Covid-19 pandemic - Whether non-citizenship of applicant ground for dismissal of application - Probate and Administration Ordinance (Sabah) (Cap 109), ss. 89, 90 & 101(1)

 

 

LEONARD DAVID SHIM JC

  • For the applicant - Ryan Soo; M/s RYCO Law Firm
  • For the respondent - Ashraaf Danial Zakaria; M/s Safrin Saleh & Co
  • For the intervener - Korventt Wheezar; M/s Korventt & Song

An advocate and solicitor who has been engaged by a party in a matter, and subsequently after the expiry of his retainer thereof has been engaged by second party for a matter against the said first party, should continue to keep confidential any confidential information that he has access to or obtained while representing the said first party. This said, the risk of disclosure should be taken as eliminated should such an advocate and solicitor, or his firm, provide an undertaking to have the documents in respect of the file created for his previous engagement deleted, and the physical file that was kept in the storage facility destroyed in the presence of the first party or his representative.
Malaysia Offshore Mobile Production (Labuan) Ltd v. PCPP Operating Company Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 1 CLJ 440 [HC]

|

LEGAL PROFESSION: Advocates and solicitors - Disqualification and restraint of counsel and firm from acting for opponent - Brief engagement of firm by opponent - Firm rendered legal service relating to contract between parties - Contract subject matter in suit - Whether there would be unfair disadvantage in litigation if firm continues to represent opponent - Whether counsel and firm should be disqualified and restrained from acting for opponent

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Writ of summons - Renewed writ of summons - Setting aside - Computation of six-month period for renewal of writ of summons - When six-month period would terminate - Whether renewed writ of summons valid when it was served - Whether renewed writ of summons expired - Whether expiry an irregularity - Whether O. 1A of Rules of Court 2012 could be invoked to save service of expired writ of summons - Whether there was valid service of renewed writ of summons - Whether service of renewed writ of summons should be set aside

 

ONG CHEE KWAN JC

  • For the plaintiff - Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Aman & Amanda Sena; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
  • For the 4th defendant - Khoo Guan Huat, Sharon Chong Tze Ying & Janice Ooi Huey Peng; M/s Skrine

A Magistrate or Sessions Judge, in proceeding to hear a criminal trial which has been partly heard, has a complete discretion under s. 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code to either hear the case de novo or continue from the point where it has been left by his predecessor, albeit that the discretion must be properly and reasonably exercised. Where, however, a trial under s. 376(1) Penal Code has been fully heard by a previous Sessions Judge except for the parties' submissions at the end of the defence case, as happened here, it might not be proper nor advisable for the succeeding Sessions Judge to have ordered a de novo trial, considering the multiple adverse repercussions that such a new trial would entail and the fact that the court could always view the full video recording of the trial if needs be; more so when no reason was given for the order, as the absence of reason may always attract the inference that the discretion has been wantonly or callously exercised.
PP v. Mohammad Fadil Hanapi Md Sahidek [2022] 1 CLJ 469 [HC]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Revision - Application for - Application for revision of decision of Sessions Court Judge ('SCJ') ordering trial to be heard de novo - Whether order had legal ramifications - Whether SCJ indicated reasons for order - Meaning of 'exercise of discretion' - Whether fulfilled - Whether Sessions Court may alter its decision after finding prima facie case had been made out by prosecution - Whether change of judge entailed order that trial be heard de novo - Whether justice of case demanded case be heard de novo - Whether order of SCJ improper and illegal - Whether ought to be set aside

 

 

AWG ARMADAJAYA AWG MAHMUD JC

  • For the applicant - Pusspa Muraiya; DPP
  • For the respondent - Syaffie Naim; M/s MN Halim Syaffie & Assocs

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. LIMITATION OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by Siti Munirah Edward[i] Nurul Akmal Azerin[ii] Nabeel Mahdi Althabawi[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) iii

  2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) iii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    LIMITATION OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN MALAYSIA

    by
    Siti Munirah Edward[i]
    Nurul Akmal Azerin[ii]
    Nabeel Mahdi Althabawi[iii]

    ABSTRACT

    The right to freedom of speech is universal, but it is interpreted differently in different countries. In Malaysia, freedom of speech is protected under Article 10 covers citizens' right to hold their own opinions and express them freely without government interference. Thus, this provision is vital in developing a democratic society in this country. However, freedom of speech is not an absolute right as it is subject to certain restrictions. These restrictions play a role in preventing conflicts with national security, public order, public health, and public morals. Even so, some may argue that these restrictions deny their freedom of speech as they are still subjected to limitations when expressing their opinion. In this paper, we will discuss how these limitations in the Constitution can balance the liberty of the citizen and the harmonisation of society. This paper analyses the freedom of speech in Malaysia regarding the legislation related to it and its compatibility with the concept of freedom according to jurists. This paper concludes that as much as freedom is a granted right, there must be a limit to it, especially when it involves society as a whole.

    . . .

    [i][ii] Third Year, Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM).

    [iii] Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia (UKM).


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THE COURT CONSIDER A PATIENT'S WISHES AND FEELINGS WHEN DETERMINING THE PATIENT'S BEST INTERESTS?* [Read excerpt]
    by Lim Shu Fen** [2022] 1 LNS(A) iv

  4. [2022] 1 LNS(A) iv
    logo
    SINGAPORE

    TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THE COURT CONSIDER A PATIENT'S WISHES
    AND FEELINGS WHEN DETERMINING THE PATIENT'S BEST INTERESTS?*


    by
    Lim Shu Fen**

    The Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A) makes it clear that a decision maker making a decision on behalf of a mentally incapacitated person (P) must consider P's wishes and feelings. This article aims to illustrate the position in Singapore and in the United Kingdom and to what extent the Court will take P's wishes and feelings into account when making a decision on behalf of P. Such a decision would have to be in P's best interests and the Court will usually look at all factors in totality; as such, the weight to be place on P's wishes and feelings differs on a case by case basis.

    INTRODUCTION

    The Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A) (MCA) places an obligation on the decision maker to act in the Patient's (P's) best interests. Section 6(7) of the MCA states the decision maker must, as far as is reasonable ascertainable, consider:

    a. P's past and present wishes and feelings (and, in particular, any relevant written statement made by him when he had capacity);

    b. P's beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision if he had capacity; and c. Other factors that P would be likely to consider if he were able to do so.[1]

    . . .

    *The article was originally published in the October 2021 issue of the Singapore Law Gazette, the official publication of the Law Society of Singapore. Reproduced with permission.

    **On behalf of Probate Practice Committee 2021.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 832 Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021) 1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987) -
ACT 831 Finance Act 2020 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 -
ACT 830 Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 -
ACT 829 Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) -
ACT 828 National Land Code (Revised 2020) 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1640 Advocates Ordinance (Sabah) (Amendment) Act 2021 10 January 2022 [PU(B) 5/2022] SABAH CAP. 2
ACT A1639 Trade Descriptions (Amendment) Act 2021 11 January 2022 [PU(B) 11/2022] ACT 730
ACT A1638 Supply Act 2022 31 December 2021  
ACT A1637 National Trust Fund (Amendment) Act 2021 9 December 2021 [PU(B) 659/2021] ACT 339
ACT A1636 Windfall Profit Levy (Amendment) Act 2021 1 December 2021 [PU(B) 614/2021] ACT 592

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 9/2022 Income Tax (Accelerated Capital Allowance) (Excursion Bus) (Amendment) Rules 2022 11 January 2022 From the year of assessment 2022 PU(A) 291/2021
PU(A) 8/2022 Customs (Prohibition of Imports) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2022 7 January 2022 10 January 2022 PU(A) 103/2017
PU(A) 7/2022 Customs (Prohibition of Imports) (Amendment) Order 2022 7 January 2022 10 January 2022 PU(A) 103/2017
PU(A) 6/2022 Federal Roads (Sarawak) (Amendment) Order 2022 7 January 2022 10 January 2022 PU(A) 551/1996
PU(A) 5/2022 Ministers of The Federal Government (No. 3) (Amendment) Order 2022 7 January 2022 13 September 2021 - subparagraph 2(a); 11 September 2021 - subsubparagraphs 2(b)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv); 1 January 2022 - subparagraphs 2(c) and (d) PU(A) 383/2021

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 14/2022 Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) 12 January 2022 24 November 2021 until 24 November 2025 ACT 778
PU(B) 13/2022 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Member of The National Wages Consultative Council 11 January 2022 Appointment - 7 October 2021; Revocation - 7 October 2021 ACT 732
PU(B) 12/2022 Notice To Third Parties 11 January 2022 12 January 2022 ACT 613
PU(B) 11/2022 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 10 January 2022 11 January 2022 ACT A1639
PU(B) 10/2022 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose - Lot 3010 City Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 10 January 2022 11 January 2022 ACT 828

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 327/1993 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Pengkompaunan Kesalahan-Kesalahan) 1993 PU(A) 447/2021 8 Disember 2021 Peraturan 2
PU(A) 327/1993 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Compounding of Offences) Regulations 1993 PU(A) 447/2021 8 December 2021 Regulation 2
PU(A) 293/2021 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Pelan Pemulihan Negara) 2021 PU(A) 446/2021 8 Disember 2021 Peraturan 17
PU(A) 293/2021 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (National Recovery Plan) Regulations 2021 PU(A) 446/2021 8 December 2021 Regulation 17
PU(A) 233/2020 Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Layanan Perubatan Dan Penyaraan Orang Yang Dipindahkan Ke Stesen Kuarantin) (No. 2) 2020 PU(A) 445/2021 8 Disember 2021 Peraturan 4

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 14/1977 Dental Regulations 1976 PU(A) 443/2021 1 January 2022
PU(A) 219/2011 Income Tax (Exchange of Information) Rules 2011 PU(A) 436/2021 2 December 2021
PU(A) 435/1994 Atomic Energy Licensing (Small Amang Factory) (Exemption) Order 1994 PU(A) 435/2021 1 June 2022
PU(A) 476/2010 Stamp Duty (Remission) (No. 4) Order 2010 PU(A) 428/2021 28 December 2018
PU(A) 392/2018 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Requirements For Labuan Business Activity) Regulations 2018 PU(A) 423/2021 1 January 2019 except for regulation 3; 1 January 2021 - regulation 3